How regulatory teaching impacts university students ...

08. DE LA FUENTE ET AL:08. DE LA FUENTE ET AL 13/06/13 10:34 Página 375

How regulatory teaching impacts university students’ perceptions of the teaching-learning process: The role of teacher training JESÚS DE LA FUENTE1, ANA B. G. BERBÉN2 AND LUCÍA ZAPATA1 1

Universidad de Almería; 2Universidad de Granada

Abstract The 3P and DEDEPRO Models predict interactive relationships among presage, process, and product variables in teaching and learning. This study examines the effects of a teacher training programme in regulatory teaching-learning strategies on students’ perception of the two processes. The sample included 737 undergraduate students and 12 teachers from two universities in southern Spain. Using a quasi-experimental design, data was collected using three validated instruments: The Scales for Assessment of the Teaching-Learning Process, student version (ATLP-S), the Scales for Interactive Assessment of the Teaching-Learning Process (IATLP) and the Experiences of Teaching and Learning questionnaire (ETLQ). MANOVAs and structural equation analysis were applied. As predicted, results offer evidence for a consistent effect of the training, in interaction with the level of regulation in teaching, on university students’ perception of regulatory teaching, of self-regulated learning and on their level of satisfaction. Implications for the training of university teachers are discussed. Keywords: DEDEPRO Model, regulatory teaching, self-regulated learning, instructional development for teachers, higher education, students’ perceptions.

Impacto de la enseñanza reguladora en la percepción del proceso de enseñanzaaprendizaje de los universitarios: el papel de la formación del profesorado Resumen Los modelos 3P y DIDEPRO predicen relaciones interactivas entre variables presagio, proceso y producto en la enseñanza y el aprendizaje. Este estudio examina los efectos de un programa de formación del profesorado en estrategias reguladoras de enseñanza-aprendizaje, en la percepción de los alumnos de ambos procesos. La muestra incluyó a 737 estudiantes y 12 profesores de dos universidades en el sur de España. Con un diseño cuasi-experimental, se obtuvieron datos de tres instrumentos: la Escala para la evaluación del Proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje, en su versión para estudiantes (ATLP-S), la Escala para la Evaluación Interactiva del Proceso de Enseñanza-Aprendizaje (EIPEA) y el Cuestionario de experiencias de enseñanza y aprendizaje (ETLQ). Se aplicaron MANOVAs y análisis de ecuaciones estructurales. Como se predijo, los resultados ofrecen evidencia de un efecto consistente de la formación, en interacción con el nivel de regulación en la enseñanza, en la percepción de los estudiantes universitarios de la enseñanza de regulación, de la autorregulación del aprendizaje y sobre su nivel de satisfacción. Se discuten las implicaciones para la formación del profesorado universitario. Palabras clave: Modelo DIDEPRO, enseñanza reguladora, aprendizaje autorregulado, desarrollo de formación docente, educación superior, percepciones de los estudiantes.

Acknowledgements: This research was funded through R&D Project EDU2011-24805 (2012-2014) of the Ministry of Science and Innovation (Spain), and with ERDF Funds (European Union). Author’s Address: Jesús de la Fuente. Departamento de Psicología (Área de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación). Facultad de Humanidades y Psicología. Universidad de Almería. Carretera de Sacramento s/n. 04120 La Cañada de San Urbano. Almería. Telephone: 00 34 950015354. Fax: 00 34 950015083. E-mail: [email protected] Manuscript received: January 18, 2013. Accepted: April 4, 2013 © 2013 Fundación Infancia y Aprendizaje, ISSN: 0210-3702

Infancia y Aprendizaje, 2013, 36 (3), 375-385


376

Infancia y Aprendizaje, 2013, 36 (3), pp. 375-385

Introduction In recent decades, research in Educational Psychology exposes the need to train university teachers for innovation in teaching and for the creation of powerful learning environments (Biggs, 2001; De Corte, Verschaffel, Entwistle & Van Merriënboer, 2003, Entwistle & Peterson, 2004; Ramsden, 2003; Vermetten, Vermunt & Lodewijks, 2002). Such programs are especially in demand in the countries participating in the new university framework called the “European Area of Higher Education” (Cruz 2003; De la Fuente & Justicia, 2003; Margalef & Álvarez, 2005). Even so, there is little research that analyzes the effects of teacher training on the teaching-learning process in this stage of education (Norton, Richardson, Hartley, Newstead & Mayes, 2005). Non-university education can offer a source of knowledge for the design and planning of university teacher training, with some differences. Traditionally, Educational Psychology theories that focus on non-university teaching emphasize strategic teacher training for creating instructional contexts that encourage self-regulated learning, from a socio-cognitive perspective (Monereo, 2006, 2007). The socio-cognitive perspective is based on two essential pillars of learning and teaching (Biggs, 2001; Monereo, 2007; Ramsden, 2003): (a) The personal construction of mental representations of reality and their function in mediating cognitive processes; (b) interpersonal experiences in the classroom that may be either the cause or effect of mental representations. Monereo (2007, p. 500) refers to “strategic knowledge” that emerges from the mental representations, and “strategic contexts”, or those environments that promote such knowledge. Research on the impact of teacher development programs and teacher training for higher education has stimulated interest in these two factors (Entwistle, McCune & Hounsell, 2002; Gibbs & Coffey, 2004; Hanbury, Prosser & Rickinson, 2008; Postareff, Lindblom-Ylänne & Nevgi, 2007). Existing programs are limited to seeking changes in teachers’ epistemological conceptions or beliefs (Cruz, 2003; Ho, Watkins & Nelly, 2001) or to training in teaching skills and strategies (Brawner, Felder, Allen & Brent, 2002; Godfrey, Dennick & Welsh, 2004; Hoogveld, Paas & Jochems, 2005). However, there are few studies that analyze learning process variables (student conceptions, perceptions, self-regulation and satisfaction) and teaching process variables (teacher conceptions, perceptions, teaching for regulation and teacher satisfaction) in conjunction. In recent years, there is increasing study of the interaction and interdependence of teaching and learning processes in higher education, especially from the student perspective. These studies primarily deal with mental representations, strategic and motivational knowledge and the strategic context, or potential learning environments. An example of this type of study can be seen in the phenomenographic investigation of learning approaches (Biggs, 2001), teaching approaches (Trigwell, 2002), and their interdependence (Light, Calkins, Luna & Drane, 2009; Trigwell, Prosser & Waterhouse, 1999). Biggs (2001) proposes the 3P model of teaching-learning in order to explain and analyze the process at three moments: Presage-Process-Product. The Biggs model, in conjunction with postulates from Zimmerman (2002) applied to teaching, is the theoretical-empirical framework for the DEDEPRO model (De la Fuente & Justicia, 2007), which establishes the importance of the interaction of teaching and learning processes (see Figure 1). The influence of mental representations (perceptions, conceptions) on Student Approaches to Learning (SAL) is also addressed in the study of Self-Regulated Learning (SRL). Specifically, the Pintrich (2004) model establishes students’ perception of the context and the task as the self-regulating action in the “context” area of the “planning” phase. The self-regulating action of the “evaluation” phase involves the perception and assessment of learning characteristics and of the teaching context. Pintrich (2004, p. 400) recognizes the need to analyze student perceptions: “an important aspect of selfregulating the context is the students’ perceptions of the task and context and their understanding and monitoring of the norms of the context … SAL models do include


Regulatory Teaching Impacts / J. de la Fuente et al.

them to some extent, at least in terms of the general idea that student learning is in relation to how they construct meaning for the tasks in the context”. Students that perceive a powerful learning environment apply more self-regulation to learning than when traditional teaching is perceived (van Grinsven & Tillema, 2006). The DEDEPRO Model (De la Fuente & Justicia, 2007) is derived from research based on Biggs’ teaching-learning model (2001) and models of self-regulated learning from Zimmerman (2002) and Pintrich (2004). The DEDEPRO model (see Figure 1) defends that self-regulated learning and regulatory teaching (teaching that promotes the former) should be produced jointly, in a mutual relationship whose purpose is to achieve outcomes of satisfaction and optimal learning, in situations characterized by different combinations of this type of learning and teaching (De la Fuente, Sander, Cardelle-Elawar & Justicia, in review). As in other research (Biggs, 2001; Monereo, 2007, Pintrich, 2004; Schunk, 2005; Zimmerman, 2002), this model assumes that learning is influenced by perception of the learning context. FIGURE 1 The DEDEPRO Model, inserted in Biggs’ 3P Model

AFTER

Regulation in the DEDEPRO model creates educational situations that enhance learning. Regulation of learning and the facilitation of self-regulation are in line with present-day needs (Biggs, 2001; De Corte et al., 2003; Entwistle & Peterson, 2004; Monereo, 2007; Ramsden, 2003; Vermetten et al., 2002). The teacher should be the first agent involved in regulating the process: in its design (before), in its development (during) and in the end-product (after). In the case of regulatory design, there is to be rigorous planning and scheduling of each point of the process, in terms of the learning load, the time required and the significance of each moment in the learning sequence. Furthermore, such planning must be made explicit and shared with the students, so that they can represent it and make it their own. Regulatory development involves teaching activities such as explaining the objectives and goals of learning each thing, along with the final level of competency that is required; preparatory activities before starting each task; continuous, formative feedback; explicit learning strategies and tools for carrying

377


378


out the activities. Finally, regulatory end product means assessing the competencies constructed, as well as student and teacher satisfaction with the process and with the learning that was accomplished (De la Fuente & Justicia, 2007). There still seems to be a lack of research on teaching improvement programs set within theoretical and methodological frameworks that make it possible to systematically assess them (Gibbs & Coffey 2004; Stes, Min-Leliveld, Gijbels, & Van Petegem 2010). There are few studies that analyze the effects of these programs, especially quantitative studies with quasi-experimental designs (Stes, Min-Leliveld et al., 2010). The effects that have been evaluated are mainly conceptions, beliefs (Ho et al., 2001; Norton et al., 2005), teaching approaches (Hanbury et al., 2008; Postareff et al., 2007; Stes, Coertjens & Van Petegem, 2010) and teacher satisfaction (Hoogveld et al., 2005; Trigwell, Caballero & Han, 2012), but not the effects of these programs on students’ learning. Research authors call for more research on the impact on learning satisfaction, learning perceptions, approaches and outcomes (Gibbs & Coffey; 2004; Stes, Min-Leliveld et al., 2010; Trigwell et al., 2012). Trigwell et al. (2012), following the work by Chism and Szabó (1997), addressed three aspects in evaluating teaching improvement programs: Participants’ degree of satisfaction, the impact on teaching practices, and finally, effects on the students. The authors conclude that for all indicators assessed, the impact was small but significant. Specifically, students of the trained teachers expressed greater satisfaction with their learning experience. Nonetheless, their conclusions indicate substantial difficulty in verifying program effects on student learning. Stes, De Maeyer, Gijbels and Van Petegem (2012a) reached similar conclusions when they analyzed the impact of initial teacher training on learning outcomes (cognitive and affective), and when they analyzed students’ perceptions of the trained teachers (Stes, De Maeyer, Gijbels & Van Petegem, 2012b) as measured by the Experiences of Teaching and Learning Questionnaire (ETLQ; Entwistle, 2005). Elsewhere, authors such as Trowler and Cooper (2002) recommend that characteristics of the teaching contexts be considered. The present study The present study analyzes the effects of the training on teacher efficacy, as seen in the impact of regulatory teaching on students’ self-regulated learning. Unlike other studies, this investigation is based on the DEDEPRO model and its general hypothesis of regulatory teaching to promote self-regulated learning. The objective of this study was to empirically demonstrate: (1) whether teacher training in regulatory teaching increased its use in the university classroom, and furthermore, whether it affected students’ perception of selfregulated learning and satisfaction with their experience of the teaching-learning process; and consequently, (2) whether the trained teachers, after implementing their strategies over one academic year, would be perceived by the students as showing greater regulatory teaching than the untrained teachers. Method Participants The 737 subjects for this study were recruited at two universities located in southern Spain, including a total of 209 students in the experimental group and 528 in the control group. The mean age of students was 21.95 (SD = 4.29), between 18 and 25 years; 356 (18.6 %) were male and 309 (72.5%) female. Of the total group, 53.8% were in their first year of the degree program, and 42.2 % in their third year. There were 5 university teachers in the experimental group and 7 in the control group. Of the 12 teachers, 2 were female and 10 were male. All the teachers, both in the experimental and control groups, had more than ten years’ teaching experience, and taught subjects in the Psychology degree program.



Instruments 1. The Scales for Assessment of the Teaching-Learning Process, ATLP-S, student version (De la Fuente, Sander, Justicia, Pichardo & Berbén, 2010) were used for hetero-assessment (as opposed to self-assessment) of a regulatory design of the teaching, namely, the suitability of its curriculum elements (objectives, content, methodology and assessment), from the students’ point of view. The ATLP is a self-report instrument to be completed by the teacher and the students, available in Spanish and English versions. It contains a quantitative part with 30 items, 15 that evaluate perception of the teaching process and 15 that evaluate perception of the learning process. Responses are on a Likert-type scale, with scores ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). In the Spanish sample we obtained: Cronbach Alpha = .93 (complete scale), .93 (first half) and .90 (second half). Spearman-Brown: .84 and Guttman: .80. For the first sub-scale, teaching process: .96 (total), .93 (first half) and .92 (second half). In the second subscale, learning process: .94 (total), .93 (first half) and .88 (second half). 2. The Interactive Assessment of the Teaching and Learning Process, IATLP (De la Fuente et al, 2012) evaluated relationships between regulatory development of the teaching, selfregulated learning and satisfaction with both, from the students’ perspective. The first dimension, called regulatory teaching, incorporates: factor 1, specific regulatory teaching; factor 4, regulatory assessment; factor 6, preparation for learning; factor 12, general regulatory teaching; and factor 8, satisfaction with the teaching. The second dimension is called self-regulated learning. Similarly, the order and weight of the factors correspond to the design of learning (Factor 2, planning) and to the development of the learning process (factor 7, thoughtful learning, and factor 9, study techniques). The third dimension is called result. It is made up of two factors, referring to the end product of the learning process: Factor 3, satisfaction with learning, and factor 10, meaningful learning. 3. The Experiences of Teaching and Learning Questionnaire (ETLQ, Entwistle et al., 2002) contains five sections that explore students’ perceptions of the teaching-learning environment and their approaches to studying in a course. It uses several Likert-type scales: Approaches to learning and studying (18 items); Experiences of teaching and learning (40 items); Demands made by the course unit (10 items); What you learned from this course unit (8 items) and, finally, the fifth section is a single 9-point scale item (1 = rather badly to 9 = very well) to ask students how they felt they had done overall in the course. The reliability of the instrument is Cronbach Alpha = .96, with .94 for the first half and .94 for the second half of the scale, Spearman-Brown coefficient = .94 and Guttman = .94. Procedure In the second half of September 2011, volunteer teachers in the experimental group followed a training process on strategies of regulatory teaching and self-regulated learning. In essence, this process (1) explained the DEDEPRO model (De la Fuente & Justicia, 2007), as well as (2) general and specific strategies of regulatory teaching, oriented toward promoting self-regulated learning. The latter included design strategies and strategies to make the teacher’s planning explicit to students, and specific strategies for regulatory teaching. The training specifically addressed: (1) general behaviors of regulatory teaching: explaining the objectives at the beginning of the class, presenting a schedule of work when beginning a new topic, posing questions before giving an explanation, etc.; (2) specific behaviors of regulatory teaching: explaining the objectives before doing a specific activity; think-aloud modeling, before, during and after the activity; helping students self-assess, etc.; (3) regulatory assessment strategies: correcting answers together with the students, in class; using a continuous assessment system, etc. The training was offered using a workshop methodology. The regulatory behavior was explained, examples of its application in class were discussed, and it was modeled by the trainer. This training process lasted twenty hours. Teachers in the experimental group were provided with a list of three

379


380


monthly teaching behaviors (one of each type that had been taught) to be implemented in their classroom during the nine months of the academic year. The academic year began in October for the teachers in both the experimental and control groups, with class subjects lasting all year. Data was collected within the framework of broader research for an R&D project. All groups completed the ATLP Scale during the month of February. The IATLP Scale and the ETLQ were administered at the end of the school year (May). Students were urged to respond to the questions as they applied to the specific teaching-learning process of the class subject they were evaluating. The ATLP Scale was used in order to assess regulatory teaching and to group the participants according to the degree of regulation they had perceived in the teaching that preceded (low, medium, high). Data analysis A quasi-experimental study with a non-equivalent control group was used. In order to reduce the effect of subject differences between the experimental and control groups, we tested for homogeneity of variance. Structural equation modeling via path analysis and univariate and multivariate analyses (ANOVA and MANOVA) were used in order to establish a relationship of interdependence between regulatory teaching (with 3 levels, Low (15-45 points), medium (46-57 points), high (58-75 points) and the training process (2 levels: Experimental vs. control), and dependent variables assessed by the ETLQ (approaches to learning and studying, experiences of teaching and learning, demands and content) and the IATLP (regulatory teaching, self-regulated learning and results). MANOVAs were performed using data from the IATLP for all dimensions and for each of the three dimensions (considering the factors). Path analysis was carried out with AMOS 6.0 for the ANOVAs and MANOVAs, using SPSS v.18. Results Effects on the perception of ETLQ dimensions Analysis of data obtained from the ETLQ revealed significant effects for both the (3x2) interaction of Level of Regulation x Training Group, F(8, 1440) = 7.54, p < .001, η2 = .04, and for each of the factors: Teacher training, control vs. experimental group, F(4, 720) = 37.28, p < .001, η2 = .17, and Level of Regulation: Low, medium and high, F(8, 1440) = 13.1, p < .001, η2 = .07. TABLE I Perception of teaching-learning, assessed by the ETLQ, according to teacher training and the level of regulatory teaching, classified as low, medium and high scores on the ATLP-S LOW (n = 111)

MEDIUM (n = 322)

HIGH (n = 304)

Contr.

Exper.

Contr.

Exper.

Contr.

Exper.

F(df), η2

D1: Approaches to learning and studying

60.32 (9.96)

58.65 (7.12)

54.84 (10.6)

59.59 (6.20)

52.17 (11.8)

62.39 (6.72)

16.4* (2), .04

D2: Experiences of teaching and learning

109.58 (19.1)

117.12 (21.1)

111.63 (25.82)

136.84 (17.21)

108.84 (45.8)

156.66 24.18* (2), (15.52) .06

D3: Demands

28.53 (4.15)

31.98 (5.36)

27.77 (5.22)

30.01 (4.46)

25.14 (6.67)

28.23 (6.51)

.507 (2), .00

D4: Content

22.89 (3.9)

25.12 (5.66)

23.09 (5.85)

27.69 (4.37)

20.62 (9.01)

30.62 (4.97)

20.31* (2), .05

Note: *: p < .001



Inter-subject effects (Table I) were significant for perception of learning, of teaching and of content learned; however, the effect size was small. When the instructors received training and their teaching was characterized by medium to high regulation, student perceptions were better on all three dimensions, as compared to perceptions of teachers that did not receive training. In the case where teaching was characterized by low regulation, the students of the trained teachers also had better perceptions of the teaching and the content learned, but not of the learning process. Univariate analyses showed significant differences in the perception of the teaching, F(2,723) = 18.99, p < .001, η2 = .05, and of the demands of the class subject, F(2, 723) = 15.59, p < .001, η2 = .04, in accordance with the level of regulation in the teaching. The post hoc test (Scheffé) revealed that greater regulation of teaching was accompanied by better student perceptions of both the teaching in general, and the demands of the subject. Results from path analysis (Figure 2) showed adequate data fit to the model (NFI = .941, TLI = .963, CFI = .945, RMSEA = .051 and Chi-square = 78.827, df = 6, p < .001): Teacher training and regulatory teaching showed significant effects on the three dimensions of the ETLQ: Approaches to learning and studying, Experiences of teaching and learning, and Content. Figure 2 presents the regression weights and standardized errors. Teacher training and regulation of teaching had a direct, significant impact on the experiences of teaching-learning perceived by the student. This perception in turn had significant effects on the perception of learning and of study in general, and of what had been learned during this class subject. FIGURE 2 Regression weights of the teaching-learning interactions model. teachergroup: teacher training group; regulatgroup: regulatory teaching group; etl.teaching: ETL teaching dimension; etl.learning: ETL learning dimension; etl.content: ETL content dimension

Effects on the perception of the IATLP dimensions The MANOVA detected significant effects for the factors Teacher training group (control vs. experimental), F(3, 729) = 40.62, p < .001, η2 = .14, and level of regulation (low, medium and high), F(6, 1458) = 78.13, p < .001, η2 = .24, but the interaction between the two was not significant, F(6, 1458) = 1.50, p = .17. As for the inter-subject effects, the three dimensions (regulatory teaching, self-regulated learning and results) were significant according to the level of teaching regulation. However, only regulatory teaching and results were significant according to training group. The students perceived better regulation in teaching, better self-regulated learning and better results from the teaching-learning process in instructional contexts with more highly regulatory teaching (Table II).

381


382


TABLE II Perception assessed by the ATLP-S (classified as low, medium and high scores), according to regulatory teaching

D1: Regulatory teaching D2: Self-regulated learning D3: Satisfaction

Low (n = 111)

Medium (n = 322)

High (n = 304)

2.76 (.53)

3.33 (.50)

3.89 (.47)

3.60 (.59)

3.68 (.51)

3.98 (.50)

2.92 (.58)

3.45 (.50)

3.99 (.46)

F(df), η2 224.02* (2), .38 23.09* (2), .06 138.43* (2), .27

effects 1